Various questions concerning relations between the old and the new media, as well as relations between different sign systems, resound in current discussions about remediation. The proposition of J. D. Bolter and R. Grusin who claim that media always comment on each other and reproduce and substitute one another gives rise to the relevant methodological question: what possible forms and qualities of mutual relationships and links between various types of media can be identified? Or, in other words, how do we specify phenomena such as intermediality and transmediality, which include the whole complex of bonds and links but at the same time, regarding their terminology, display a certain level of ambiguity? The author compares several interpretative approaches to the abovementioned phenomena that stem from German ideological concepts and aims at pointing out their possible concurrence as well as their current terminological differences. She confronts W. Wolf ’s and I. Rajewsky’s concepts of intermediality and transmediality with the more recent attempts at terminological clarification of both phenomena: by U. Wirth and R. Simanowski. At the same time, the author does not ignore the fact that the latest methodological tendencies are not isolated in their theoretical reflections but follow several relevant premises. These premises include fundamental ideological struggles that have taken place in modern art, semiotics and philosophy, viz. the crisis of representation, and poststructuralist attempts at loosening or even over-stepping the text’s limits. Both tendencies can be seen as turning points; they have modified stabilized forms and deep-rooted interpretative formulae by which they laid the foundation for the subsequent new approach to media studies that interconnects art, literary studies, philosophy and digital technology.